Using an AR-15, a man kills four 20-somethings at a waffle house, with weapons that the FBI had taken from him and given to his Father for safekeeping ON A PROMISE!

Yep, no need for stricter gun laws or registries.

It's just the militia doing their job.

FFS.

Please use facts in your rants, as much as you can.

-Local police returned the gun, not the FBI. -The kid HAD a FOID card (revoked after the whitehouse incident), which is a state issued license to buy a gun. -Illinois requires all gun sales to verify the validity of the FOID card for private sales.

All indications are that his kid could have and did buy those guns legally, and possessed them up until his whitehouse incident. At that point, the local law enforcement failed by giving the guns to the guys father.

I fail to see how a registry would have prevented this.

It's true - when legal gun owners break the law and choose to give their arms to criminals then criminals will get guns no matter what regulations are in place.

The son told the secret service that he was a sovereign citizen and had the right to inspect the grounds of the white house last year. The year before he told authorities that Taylor Swift was stalking him. He had made comments about killing himself in the past as well. The system worked. His license was revoked before the incident could happen. A registry prevented him from buying new weapons and from buying ammunition.

Unfortunately, his father also had an FOID . . . and armed his son so that the shooting could occur. Hopefully the father will be held accountable for his actions. Sadly, given the usual lack of accountability that gun owners are held to I'd be surprised if he even loses his firearms license, let alone does jail time.

One argument I see is that gun laws make things harder for law-abiding gun owners and doesn't do much to deter criminals from breaking the law (because criminals are not going to respect the law in the first place).

I'd propose making it a felony to posses a firearm illegally. That way the law abiding people aren't affected at all, but the criminals that have the guns in their possession are able to be prosecuted for the mere fact of having the gun. In other words, treat guns like we treat drugs.

We could even come up with a clever name for it like "The War on Violence". Haha, I love the inherent contradiction in that name.

Using an AR-15, a man kills four 20-somethings at a waffle house, with weapons that the FBI had taken from him and given to his Father for safekeeping ON A PROMISE!

Yep, no need for stricter gun laws or registries.

It's just the militia doing their job.

FFS.

Please use facts in your rants, as much as you can.

-Local police returned the gun, not the FBI. -The kid HAD a FOID card (revoked after the whitehouse incident), which is a state issued license to buy a gun. -Illinois requires all gun sales to verify the validity of the FOID card for private sales.

All indications are that his kid could have and did buy those guns legally, and possessed them up until his whitehouse incident. At that point, the local law enforcement failed by giving the guns to the guys father.

I fail to see how a registry would have prevented this.

Not really a rant... more just a subtle frustration. No need to be rude.

It was reported earlier that the FBI had returned the guns.I see now they are reporting that it was the FBI who requested local authorities to revoke his firearms card and seize the guns.

Think about how a gun registry might work. If there was a gun registry, they wouldn't have simply given the guns to someone else would they?

In this case they would have destroyed the weapons as the owner no longer has the right to own them.

Soooooo, maybe we'd only be talking about assault with maple syrup and a butter pat right now?

Using an AR-15, a man kills four 20-somethings at a waffle house, with weapons that the FBI had taken from him and given to his Father for safekeeping ON A PROMISE!

Yep, no need for stricter gun laws or registries.

It's just the militia doing their job.

FFS.

Please use facts in your rants, as much as you can.

-Local police returned the gun, not the FBI. -The kid HAD a FOID card (revoked after the whitehouse incident), which is a state issued license to buy a gun. -Illinois requires all gun sales to verify the validity of the FOID card for private sales.

All indications are that his kid could have and did buy those guns legally, and possessed them up until his whitehouse incident. At that point, the local law enforcement failed by giving the guns to the guys father.

I fail to see how a registry would have prevented this.

Not really a rant... more just a subtle frustration. No need to be rude.

It was reported earlier that the FBI had returned the guns.I see now they are reporting that it was the FBI who requested local authorities to revoke his firearms card and seize the guns.

Think about how a gun registry might work. If there was a gun registry, they wouldn't have simply given the guns to someone else would they?

In this case they would have destroyed the weapons as the owner no longer has the right to own them.?

Soooooo, maybe we'd only be talking about assault with maple syrup and a butter pat right now?

I'm very much in favor of a registry, but I don't think this incident is the best way to highlight the potential benefits. We know who provided the gun in this case despite the lack of registration.

This is making some assumptions that go beyond the implementation of a registry. They still could give the guns to a family member, why does registration = guns would be destroyed?

Using an AR-15, a man kills four 20-somethings at a waffle house, with weapons that the FBI had taken from him and given to his Father for safekeeping ON A PROMISE!

Yep, no need for stricter gun laws or registries.

It's just the militia doing their job.

FFS.

Please use facts in your rants, as much as you can.

-Local police returned the gun, not the FBI. -The kid HAD a FOID card (revoked after the whitehouse incident), which is a state issued license to buy a gun. -Illinois requires all gun sales to verify the validity of the FOID card for private sales.

All indications are that his kid could have and did buy those guns legally, and possessed them up until his whitehouse incident. At that point, the local law enforcement failed by giving the guns to the guys father.

I fail to see how a registry would have prevented this.

Not really a rant... more just a subtle frustration. No need to be rude.

It was reported earlier that the FBI had returned the guns.I see now they are reporting that it was the FBI who requested local authorities to revoke his firearms card and seize the guns.

Think about how a gun registry might work. If there was a gun registry, they wouldn't have simply given the guns to someone else would they?

In this case they would have destroyed the weapons as the owner no longer has the right to own them.?

Soooooo, maybe we'd only be talking about assault with maple syrup and a butter pat right now?

I'm very much in favor of a registry, but I don't think this incident is the best way to highlight the potential benefits. We know who provided the gun in this case despite the lack of registration.

This is making some assumptions that go beyond the implementation of a registry. They still could give the guns to a family member, why does registration = guns would be destroyed?

You might be right. A simple registry by itself without tougher gun laws would be less useful.

On the other hand...Why would they give the guns away at all? Especially to a family member?Shouldn't they be destroying confiscated weapons?

What I want to know, is when we start demanding responsibility (and consequences) from gun owners?

In the Waffle House shooting, it appears that the father gave guns back to his obviously very mentally ill, very paranoid son, despite telling law enforcement he would not do so. If this is true, then as a result of that action, 4 people are dead.

This should not be covered by an 'oops, my bad'. I don't care if he's a legal gun owner or if he had the 'right' to loan guns to his son. 4 people are dead. His son did the shooting, but the father should be just as culpable. He should be on the hook for homicide, and the full weight of the law brought against him. But he won't be, because existing laws can't hold him accountable (and what few ones there are for this sort of thing are almost never enforced.)

Same goes for the parent who has a child shoot another because they left their loaded firearm on a side table, in easy reach.

Same goes for the 20-something guy who leaves his guns unsecured, so that his roommate can steal them and go on a shooting rampage at a nearby mall.

Same goes for the mother of the mentally ill boy who thought the answer to his mental illness was to give him access to guns. (A glass-fronted gun case is not secure, folks). In her case, she paid the ultimate price for that bit of stupidity--but so did a lot of little kids who didn't need to die.

That's where I'm at these days in regards to guns. If I own a gun, then I should be F#@$!! responsible for it AT ALL TIMES. If it's not on my person, it should be locked up. If it's not, and someone else gets their hands on it and commits a crime with it, then I should be held equally responsible by the law for that crime. And if I'm not comfortable with that responsibility, then I shouldn't own a gun.

That's where I'm at these days in regards to guns. If I own a gun, then I should be F#@$!! responsible for it AT ALL TIMES. If it's not on my person, it should be locked up. If it's not, and someone else gets their hands on it and commits a crime with it, then I should be held equally responsible by the law for that crime. And if I'm not comfortable with that responsibility, then I shouldn't own a gun.

That's where I'm at these days in regards to guns. If I own a gun, then I should be F#@$!! responsible for it AT ALL TIMES. If it's not on my person, it should be locked up. If it's not, and someone else gets their hands on it and commits a crime with it, then I should be held equally responsible by the law for that crime. And if I'm not comfortable with that responsibility, then I shouldn't own a gun.

That's where I'm at these days in regards to guns. If I own a gun, then I should be F#@$!! responsible for it AT ALL TIMES. If it's not on my person, it should be locked up. If it's not, and someone else gets their hands on it and commits a crime with it, then I should be held equally responsible by the law for that crime. And if I'm not comfortable with that responsibility, then I shouldn't own a gun.

+1

+2

Sounds pretty simple. Looking forward to all the reasons responsible gun owners rail against this because it makes it to hard to access when they need it.

That's where I'm at these days in regards to guns. If I own a gun, then I should be F#@$!! responsible for it AT ALL TIMES. If it's not on my person, it should be locked up. If it's not, and someone else gets their hands on it and commits a crime with it, then I should be held equally responsible by the law for that crime. And if I'm not comfortable with that responsibility, then I shouldn't own a gun.

+1

+2

Sounds pretty simple. Looking forward to all the reasons responsible gun owners rail against this because it makes it to hard to access when they need it.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-safe-gun-storage-20180223-story.html - More than half of gun owners in the US keep a firearm without any locks or deterrent to prevent use by an unauthorized person, or to prevent theft. - 45% of gun owners with kids under the age of 18 leave unsecured firearms lying around the home. - Only 35% of gun owning parents of children with mental health conditions keep weapons unloaded and locked away.

You're asking for responsibility for their actions from a large group of people who have proven by their actions that they're not willing to accept any.

That's where I'm at these days in regards to guns. If I own a gun, then I should be F#@$!! responsible for it AT ALL TIMES. If it's not on my person, it should be locked up. If it's not, and someone else gets their hands on it and commits a crime with it, then I should be held equally responsible by the law for that crime. And if I'm not comfortable with that responsibility, then I shouldn't own a gun.

+1

+2

Sounds pretty simple. Looking forward to all the reasons responsible gun owners rail against this because it makes it to hard to access when they need it.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-safe-gun-storage-20180223-story.html - More than half of gun owners in the US keep a firearm without any locks or deterrent to prevent use by an unauthorized person, or to prevent theft. - 45% of gun owners with kids under the age of 18 leave unsecured firearms lying around the home. - Only 35% of gun owning parents of children with mental health conditions keep weapons unloaded and locked away.

You're asking for responsibility for their actions from a large group of people who have proven by their actions that they're not willing to accept any.

Perhaps good reason why the phrase "law abiding gun owner" is often used as opposed to "responsible gun owner." I brought up before the sobering statistics related to the number of firearms obtained from "law abiding gun owners" that were used in gun related crimes. The irony of the whole situation is staggering.

That's where I'm at these days in regards to guns. If I own a gun, then I should be F#@$!! responsible for it AT ALL TIMES. If it's not on my person, it should be locked up. If it's not, and someone else gets their hands on it and commits a crime with it, then I should be held equally responsible by the law for that crime. And if I'm not comfortable with that responsibility, then I shouldn't own a gun.

At the risk of Clintoning this, what does "locked up" mean? Because my weapons are always locked up in my house. For anyone to take my weapons they have to forceably break into my house, and if they're willing to break into my brick house with metal security doors, they're not going to be stopped by any reasonable gun storage inside that house (a real safe is going to cost you probably $1500 or more, cheaper than that is some BS locking cabinet that's easily defeated by a person who can get past a deadbolted exterior door).

You can't act like every situation is the same. A child finding a loaded Glock in a bedside table is different than a father of an adult mentally disturbed child keeping guns accessible to that person, is different than some punk breaking into my house and stealing my guns and committing a crime with them. You can't punish them all equally. In some cases (the last one) I don't see how you can punish it at all. "Well sir, I understand the thief kicked in your back door and ransacked your house, but he stole the shotgun in your closet and killed someone with it. If only you had used a $10 cable trigger lock on it that would have been defeated in 3 seconds with the bolt cutters in your garage, we wouldn't be arresting you for 1st degree murder right now!"

And this is before we get into the legality of trying to charge someone who had a gun taken from them with something like premeditated murder. I am 100% in favor of holding gun owners responsible for negligence when they fail to secure their weapons and something bad happens as a result, but a victim of a crime (break in) is not negligent, and negligence can't be punished the same way that premeditated crimes are.

But I guess if we want to ignore all nuance and reality we can get cute and propose ambiguous BS like "just charge gun owners with the crime!" and pretend that anyone who understands all of that is just irresponsible and wrong.

That's where I'm at these days in regards to guns. If I own a gun, then I should be F#@$!! responsible for it AT ALL TIMES. If it's not on my person, it should be locked up. If it's not, and someone else gets their hands on it and commits a crime with it, then I should be held equally responsible by the law for that crime. And if I'm not comfortable with that responsibility, then I shouldn't own a gun.

At the risk of Clintoning this, what does "locked up" mean? Because my weapons are always locked up in my house. For anyone to take my weapons they have to forceably break into my house, and if they're willing to break into my brick house with metal security doors, they're not going to be stopped by any reasonable gun storage inside that house (a real safe is going to cost you probably $1500 or more, cheaper than that is some BS locking cabinet that's easily defeated by a person who can get past a deadbolted exterior door).

You can't act like every situation is the same. A child finding a loaded Glock in a bedside table is different than a father of an adult mentally disturbed child keeping guns accessible to that person, is different than some punk breaking into my house and stealing my guns and committing a crime with them. You can't punish them all equally. In some cases (the last one) I don't see how you can punish it at all. "Well sir, I understand the thief kicked in your back door and ransacked your house, but he stole the shotgun in your closet and killed someone with it. If only you had used a $10 cable trigger lock on it that would have been defeated in 3 seconds with the bolt cutters in your garage, we wouldn't be arresting you for 1st degree murder right now!"

And this is before we get into the legality of trying to charge someone who had a gun taken from them with something like premeditated murder. I am 100% in favor of holding gun owners responsible for negligence when they fail to secure their weapons and something bad happens as a result, but a victim of a crime (break in) is not negligent, and negligence can't be punished the same way that premeditated crimes are.

But I guess if we want to ignore all nuance and reality we can get cute and propose ambiguous BS like "just charge gun owners with the crime!" and pretend that anyone who understands all of that is just irresponsible and wrong.

If you keep your guns locked up in a secure location and unloaded in your home then we have no problem. You're a responsible gun owner.

If you keep a loaded gun that's not locked up in your home and your home also contains a young kid (as is the case with half of gun owners with children), then if a fully forseeable "accident" happens you should go to jail for manslaughter. Your negligence caused the death or injury. As a felon, you should then be prevented from ever owning a gun again . . . since you've proven that you are not responsible enough to do so.

If you have a mentally ill child and keep unsecured guns in your home, you should be held responsible for the deaths and injury that your child causes with your gun. It is your responsibility to care for the child and prevent him from getting the gun.

The issue of theft is less clear cut. Guns in the home should be locked up, separate from ammunition. I'm picturing a sturdy lock on a room, a gun safe, or a strong locked cabinet. It doesn't need to be thousands of dollars, you could probably cobble one together for less than a hundred dollars.

If you leave your gun out on the coffee table and someone walks in your unlocked back door and steals it . . . you were negligent. You should pay a fine for this negligence. If the negligence happens several times, then maybe greater punishment could be levied. If that gun is then used in a crime, it's obviously not fair to charge you with the crime, but you shouldn't just get to wash your hands of all responsibility.

If you have a gun locked away in a gun cabinet, and a thief breaks into your locked home, breaks into your gun cabinet and makes off with the weapon . . . obviously you did what you could to prevent the theft and should not be held responsible for anything.

I don't blame gun owners for this type of thing. Yes, it's their negligence that has directly caused the death . . . but if there's no law that says you have store a gun safely we know that people won't do it. Look at the statistics. This is a problem squarely at the feet of a government that has allowed lax gun storage laws to go on for too long. Stiff penalties for irresponsible gun ownership need to be enacted, as do safe storage requirements.

I really don't get the "Ammo in a different spot" thing. Do you guys think guns magically load themselves?

As a gun owner with one of those 1500$ safes, I consider it rather prudent that my wife and I keep ALL guns and ammo within the (pretty dang strong) safe unless it is on our person. But under California's storage laws, I would be committing a crime by keeping it in the same spot.

Is there something I am missing with the whole 'keep the ammo somewhere else' bit?

Also, it is rather dubious to make some of these claims about storage without linking out to the study or examining exactly what questions were asked.

If they were to ask "at any point during the day, do you keep an unloaded firearm unsecured in your home" and define "unsecured" as "not in a locked safe or disabled", I would have to say yes, because as a LTC it is on my person. The wording of the questions is really important. If you post a link to the study, I wouldn't mind looking through it to see exactly what they asked (and how substantial the survey's base was).

Maybe a $1500+ dollar gun safe bolted to the house ought to be a requirement of owning guns then.

Many of us are in states where we are required insure our cars before we can drive them on public streets...

Just a cost of doing business.

I hope the courts throw the book at the father. The kid was definitely off his rocker with beliefs that Taylor Swift was stalking HIM and hacking his phone. Father gives guns to a guy like this???

If you think a $1500 safe is reasonable I look forward to you support of a $10 ID required for voting. You know, since we can charge for exercising rights now.

As said, we pay thousands of dollars a year for the right to drive a car. Maybe $1,500 is too much, but once again, your response is full of all the reasons it would be too hard for you without any attempt at taking responsibility and saying how you do solve the problem without the pointless platitude of "enforce the laws we have". That would be fine. Work up a plan on how to do that since what we do now does not work. Is your answer that everyone in those jobs a just lazy bums and they get attracted to those jobs, or can you admit that all the grumbling of the gun lobby makes it too difficult to enforce the laws and we should look at a different solution?

Maybe a $1500+ dollar gun safe bolted to the house ought to be a requirement of owning guns then.

Many of us are in states where we are required insure our cars before we can drive them on public streets...

Just a cost of doing business.

I hope the courts throw the book at the father. The kid was definitely off his rocker with beliefs that Taylor Swift was stalking HIM and hacking his phone. Father gives guns to a guy like this???

If you think a $1500 safe is reasonable I look forward to you support of a $10 ID required for voting. You know, since we can charge for exercising rights now.

As said, we pay thousands of dollars a year for the right to drive a car. Maybe $1,500 is too much, but once again, your response is full of all the reasons it would be too hard for you without any attempt at taking responsibility and saying how you do solve the problem without the pointless platitude of "enforce the laws we have". That would be fine. Work up a plan on how to do that since what we do now does not work. Is your answer that everyone in those jobs a just lazy bums and they get attracted to those jobs, or can you admit that all the grumbling of the gun lobby makes it too difficult to enforce the laws and we should look at a different solution?

You do have a constitutional right to purchase a firearm for self protection. Without significant, government ordained barriers to entry. (Which is also why the various gun-tax laws on ammo and firearms being floated around would not be found constitutional, IMO).

I'm not really sure what else you want. Basically every state does have criminal negligence laws on the books. Texas is pretty dang stringent in that so much as leaving a loaded firearm accessible to someone under 18 is a criminal act, whether or not anything happens (As it should be, IMO). Increases to manslaughter if death occurs.

Do you understand the laws on the books? Why aren't they being enforced? That is a local issue to which a local DA needs to be held accountable for failing to uphold the written law. If these accidents are so common, and the laws to prosecute are present, why aren't they being prosecuted?

I don't blame gun owners for this type of thing. Yes, it's their negligence that has directly caused the death . . . but if there's no law that says you have store a gun safely we know that people won't do it. Look at the statistics. This is a problem squarely at the feet of a government that has allowed lax gun storage laws to go on for too long. Stiff penalties for irresponsible gun ownership need to be enacted, as do safe storage requirements.

"I don't blame gun owners for this type of thing." I do.

But it makes sense in your worldview of blaming an inanimate object instead of a person for committing a wrong....

Maybe a $1500+ dollar gun safe bolted to the house ought to be a requirement of owning guns then.

Many of us are in states where we are required insure our cars before we can drive them on public streets...

Just a cost of doing business.

I hope the courts throw the book at the father. The kid was definitely off his rocker with beliefs that Taylor Swift was stalking HIM and hacking his phone. Father gives guns to a guy like this???

If you think a $1500 safe is reasonable I look forward to you support of a $10 ID required for voting. You know, since we can charge for exercising rights now.

As said, we pay thousands of dollars a year for the right to drive a car. Maybe $1,500 is too much, but once again, your response is full of all the reasons it would be too hard for you without any attempt at taking responsibility and saying how you do solve the problem without the pointless platitude of "enforce the laws we have". That would be fine. Work up a plan on how to do that since what we do now does not work. Is your answer that everyone in those jobs a just lazy bums and they get attracted to those jobs, or can you admit that all the grumbling of the gun lobby makes it too difficult to enforce the laws and we should look at a different solution?

You do have a constitutional right to purchase a firearm for self protection. Without significant, government ordained barriers to entry. (Which is also why the various gun-tax laws on ammo and firearms being floated around would not be found constitutional, IMO).

I'm not really sure what else you want. Basically every state does have criminal negligence laws on the books. Texas is pretty dang stringent in that so much as leaving a loaded firearm accessible to someone under 18 is a criminal act, whether or not anything happens (As it should be, IMO). Increases to manslaughter if death occurs.

Do you understand the laws on the books? Why aren't they being enforced? That is a local issue to which a local DA needs to be held accountable for failing to uphold the written law. If these accidents are so common, and the laws to prosecute are present, why aren't they being prosecuted?

Yup, and that's why I go back to removing the constitutional right, because it creates a basis of defense that abdicates responsibility. Worded another way "the Constitution gives me the right to have guns. It never says anything about me doing so responsibly, so I can not worry about that". What I want is for all gun owners to get involved in fixing the death rate in this country and not just walk away and say "not my problem". It's like when my kids leave crap around the house and it causes an issue. They can choose to figure that out, or I just throw the crap out and the problem is solved. That is why I am fine with just get rid of the guns if we can't figure out a way to address the harm they cause. That's why I say remove the Constitutional protection and make it the same as owning a car. You get to do it under certain rules, not just because it was written in this special document that removes any government ordained barriers to entry (which would include laws since they come from the government). So IMO your defense is not really helping. You just flat out said the government cannot infringe on my right, which by default removes creating laws around them, because as you said they are found unconstitutional, so we keep circling back to the problem resolution being to remove the protection for something that causes harm and is not being addressed. It just gets talked about for a while and then forgotten and allowed to go on and on and on and on. Insanity.

Maybe a $1500+ dollar gun safe bolted to the house ought to be a requirement of owning guns then.

Many of us are in states where we are required insure our cars before we can drive them on public streets...

Just a cost of doing business.

I hope the courts throw the book at the father. The kid was definitely off his rocker with beliefs that Taylor Swift was stalking HIM and hacking his phone. Father gives guns to a guy like this???

If you think a $1500 safe is reasonable I look forward to you support of a $10 ID required for voting. You know, since we can charge for exercising rights now.

As said, we pay thousands of dollars a year for the right to drive a car. Maybe $1,500 is too much, but once again, your response is full of all the reasons it would be too hard for you without any attempt at taking responsibility and saying how you do solve the problem without the pointless platitude of "enforce the laws we have". That would be fine. Work up a plan on how to do that since what we do now does not work. Is your answer that everyone in those jobs a just lazy bums and they get attracted to those jobs, or can you admit that all the grumbling of the gun lobby makes it too difficult to enforce the laws and we should look at a different solution?

As I've said before, storage of firearms is highly personal and dependent on tons of factors such as type of firearm, typical inhabitants of the home, type of home, etc etc etc.

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time. It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber. It's somewhere in my bedroom. Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it. She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

That's a very different scenario than if I had a Glock handgun (no active safety) that I left loaded with one in the chamber in my nightstand and my kid or her friend could pick up and fire with little to no effort at all.

But both are "unsecured loaded firearms", but I think you can see how it isn't the same situation. Therefore, the rules I have for each are different. And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages.

Anyways, because I find the issue of storage of firearms so situation-specific, I think the idea of mandating a solution is silly and simplistic. I have zero problem with throwing the book at people when a problem happens, but I believe you simply can't legislate a solution that isn't needlessly burdensome. You guys seem very hung up on creating a law that removes any possible way for a bad thing to happen, but that's not how a free society works. We don't require that no one is able to have more than 2 drinks of alcohol ever so that no one gets in a DUI accident, we simply make the punishment for DUI so burdensome, and the alternatives so attractive (cabs, ridesharing, free overnight parking, etc) that we lessen the problem without creating ridiculous pre-emptive solutions.

I'm not sure what the body count will need to be, but I am confident that at some point we will reach a tipping point that this will happen. More and more people are getting fed up with the no-action of gun owners who just want to sit back and wait for the other side to solve it.

Maybe a $1500+ dollar gun safe bolted to the house ought to be a requirement of owning guns then.

Many of us are in states where we are required insure our cars before we can drive them on public streets...

Just a cost of doing business.

I hope the courts throw the book at the father. The kid was definitely off his rocker with beliefs that Taylor Swift was stalking HIM and hacking his phone. Father gives guns to a guy like this???

If you think a $1500 safe is reasonable I look forward to you support of a $10 ID required for voting. You know, since we can charge for exercising rights now.

As said, we pay thousands of dollars a year for the right to drive a car. Maybe $1,500 is too much, but once again, your response is full of all the reasons it would be too hard for you without any attempt at taking responsibility and saying how you do solve the problem without the pointless platitude of "enforce the laws we have". That would be fine. Work up a plan on how to do that since what we do now does not work. Is your answer that everyone in those jobs a just lazy bums and they get attracted to those jobs, or can you admit that all the grumbling of the gun lobby makes it too difficult to enforce the laws and we should look at a different solution?

As I've said before, storage of firearms is highly personal and dependent on tons of factors such as type of firearm, typical inhabitants of the home, type of home, etc etc etc.

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time. It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber. It's somewhere in my bedroom. Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it. She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

That's a very different scenario than if I had a Glock handgun (no active safety) that I left loaded with one in the chamber in my nightstand and my kid or her friend could pick up and fire with little to no effort at all.

But both are "unsecured loaded firearms", but I think you can see how it isn't the same situation. Therefore, the rules I have for each are different. And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages.

Anyways, because I find the issue of storage of firearms so situation-specific, I think the idea of mandating a solution is silly and simplistic. I have zero problem with throwing the book at people when a problem happens, but I believe you simply can't legislate a solution that isn't needlessly burdensome. You guys seem very hung up on creating a law that removes any possible way for a bad thing to happen, but that's not how a free society works. We don't require that no one is able to have more than 2 drinks of alcohol ever so that no one gets in a DUI accident, we simply make the punishment for DUI so burdensome, and the alternatives so attractive (cabs, ridesharing, free overnight parking, etc) that we lessen the problem without creating ridiculous pre-emptive solutions.

Soooo gun owners shouldn't be expected to be responsible, is what you are saying. Your DUI example is actually perfect. It used to not be a crime to drink and drive (and even if it was, it was rarely ever enforced). Then we decided as a society that we weren't going to just accept deaths from the irresponsible behavior of a dangerous substance (alcohol) in a dangerous situation (driving a vehicle). So we made it against the law to drink and drive. That is, in fact, legislating a solution to the problem. Its the very DEFINITION of legislating a solution to the problem.

So lets do the same with gun ownership. You leave your guns laying around (or even "hidden") and not locked up, you're culpable for any harm that weapon causes. And it's fair because the same rules apply to everyone. No special exceptions of "but I teach my kid to be responsible!" bullshit. You own a gun, you lock it up. Period.

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time. It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber. It's somewhere in my bedroom. Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it. She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

That's a very different scenario than if I had a Glock handgun (no active safety) that I left loaded with one in the chamber in my nightstand and my kid or her friend could pick up and fire with little to no effort at all.

But both are "unsecured loaded firearms", but I think you can see how it isn't the same situation. Therefore, the rules I have for each are different. And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages.

Holy shit. This keeps me up at night. I assume that, if I were to meet your family IRL, I would have no way of knowing that you were the kind of person who kept a loaded weapon accessible to children. What happens during a playdate if an older sibling tags along who can lift that loaded shotgun? When people ask you about gun storage before they let their kids come over, what do you say, or is that not a thing where you live? Do you put the gun up when you have guests?

You do have a constitutional right to purchase a firearm for self protection. Without significant, government ordained barriers to entry. (Which is also why the various gun-tax laws on ammo and firearms being floated around would not be found constitutional, IMO).

That's not true at all. Taxation is not the same as regulation. Of course DC vs Heller concluded that regulation of firearms would continue. But, a tax is not a form of regulation. Seattle instituted a gun tax in 2015 and it was overwhelmingly upheld by the Washington Supreme Court. The folks challenging it didn't even invoke "unconstitutionality" as a means of attempting to repeal but rather claimed that it violated a specific state law that bans cities form regulating firearms.

Maybe a $1500+ dollar gun safe bolted to the house ought to be a requirement of owning guns then.

Many of us are in states where we are required insure our cars before we can drive them on public streets...

Just a cost of doing business.

I hope the courts throw the book at the father. The kid was definitely off his rocker with beliefs that Taylor Swift was stalking HIM and hacking his phone. Father gives guns to a guy like this???

If you think a $1500 safe is reasonable I look forward to you support of a $10 ID required for voting. You know, since we can charge for exercising rights now.

As said, we pay thousands of dollars a year for the right to drive a car. Maybe $1,500 is too much, but once again, your response is full of all the reasons it would be too hard for you without any attempt at taking responsibility and saying how you do solve the problem without the pointless platitude of "enforce the laws we have". That would be fine. Work up a plan on how to do that since what we do now does not work. Is your answer that everyone in those jobs a just lazy bums and they get attracted to those jobs, or can you admit that all the grumbling of the gun lobby makes it too difficult to enforce the laws and we should look at a different solution?

You do have a constitutional right to purchase a firearm for self protection. Without significant, government ordained barriers to entry. (Which is also why the various gun-tax laws on ammo and firearms being floated around would not be found constitutional, IMO).

I'm not really sure what else you want. Basically every state does have criminal negligence laws on the books. Texas is pretty dang stringent in that so much as leaving a loaded firearm accessible to someone under 18 is a criminal act, whether or not anything happens (As it should be, IMO). Increases to manslaughter if death occurs.

Do you understand the laws on the books? Why aren't they being enforced? That is a local issue to which a local DA needs to be held accountable for failing to uphold the written law. If these accidents are so common, and the laws to prosecute are present, why aren't they being prosecuted?

Yup, and that's why I go back to removing the constitutional right, because it creates a basis of defense that abdicates responsibility.

What I want is for all gun owners to get involved in fixing the death rate in this country and not just walk away and say "not my problem".

Except, ya know, firearms accidents are a tiny TINY slice of deaths. "Fixing the death rate" is a left dog-whistle for ignoring real statistics. Firearms accidents (and adolescent murders outside of gang-related warfare) are basically non-existent in our 320 million population.

In actual numbers, its 82 kids lost per year to firearm accidental fatalities. 82 out of 320 million. 82 out of 100 million gun owners. That is 0.082 per 100,000 gun owners. Or 1 death per 1,218,000 gun owners. Why do you want to restrict the rights of 1,217,999 gun owners because of One idiot, when there are already laws on the books to punish that idiot?

It's like when my kids leave crap around the house and it causes an issue. They can choose to figure that out, or I just throw the crap out and the problem is solved. That is why I am fine with just get rid of the guns if we can't figure out a way to address the harm they cause. That's why I say remove the Constitutional protection and make it the same as owning a car. You get to do it under certain rules, not just because it was written in this special document that removes any government ordained barriers to entry (which would include laws since they come from the government).

Just like yelling FIRE in a crowded theater... oh wait. Ya thats not how the constitution works. But, as a free society, we choose liberty and freedom with the recognition that we have responsibility for our actions- After we have caused harm. Not before.

I'm still waiting to see how I am guilty for some other murder's actions.

So IMO your defense is not really helping. You just flat out said the government cannot infringe on my right, which by default removes creating laws around them, because as you said they are found unconstitutional, so we keep circling back to the problem resolution being to remove the protection for something that causes harm and is not being addressed. It just gets talked about for a while and then forgotten and allowed to go on and on and on and on. Insanity.

Please, write your congressman and ask to start the process of repealing the 2nd Amendment. At least then we can have an honest discussion instead of legislating a constitutional right into oblivion (which should scare all of us, 2A supporter or not).

You do have a constitutional right to purchase a firearm for self protection. Without significant, government ordained barriers to entry. (Which is also why the various gun-tax laws on ammo and firearms being floated around would not be found constitutional, IMO).

That's not true at all. Taxation is not the same as regulation. Of course DC vs Heller concluded that regulation of firearms would continue. But, a tax is not a form of regulation. Seattle instituted a gun tax in 2015 and it was overwhelmingly upheld by the Washington Supreme Court. The folks challenging it didn't even invoke "unconstitutionality" as a means of attempting to repeal but rather claimed that it violated a specific state law that bans cities form regulating firearms.

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time. It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber. It's somewhere in my bedroom. Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it. She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

That's a very different scenario than if I had a Glock handgun (no active safety) that I left loaded with one in the chamber in my nightstand and my kid or her friend could pick up and fire with little to no effort at all.

But both are "unsecured loaded firearms", but I think you can see how it isn't the same situation. Therefore, the rules I have for each are different. And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages.

Holy shit. This keeps me up at night. I assume that, if I were to meet your family IRL, I would have no way of knowing that you were the kind of person who kept a loaded weapon accessible to children. What happens during a playdate if an older sibling tags along who can lift that loaded shotgun? When people ask you about gun storage before they let their kids come over, what do you say, or is that not a thing where you live? Do you put the gun up when you have guests?

Why is any kid in my master bedroom? The way my house is set up, you canít accidetnally be in there and accidentally stumble upon the gun.

Maybe a $1500+ dollar gun safe bolted to the house ought to be a requirement of owning guns then.

Many of us are in states where we are required insure our cars before we can drive them on public streets...

Just a cost of doing business.

I hope the courts throw the book at the father. The kid was definitely off his rocker with beliefs that Taylor Swift was stalking HIM and hacking his phone. Father gives guns to a guy like this???

If you think a $1500 safe is reasonable I look forward to you support of a $10 ID required for voting. You know, since we can charge for exercising rights now.

As said, we pay thousands of dollars a year for the right to drive a car. Maybe $1,500 is too much, but once again, your response is full of all the reasons it would be too hard for you without any attempt at taking responsibility and saying how you do solve the problem without the pointless platitude of "enforce the laws we have". That would be fine. Work up a plan on how to do that since what we do now does not work. Is your answer that everyone in those jobs a just lazy bums and they get attracted to those jobs, or can you admit that all the grumbling of the gun lobby makes it too difficult to enforce the laws and we should look at a different solution?

As I've said before, storage of firearms is highly personal and dependent on tons of factors such as type of firearm, typical inhabitants of the home, type of home, etc etc etc.

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time. It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber. It's somewhere in my bedroom. Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it. She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

That's a very different scenario than if I had a Glock handgun (no active safety) that I left loaded with one in the chamber in my nightstand and my kid or her friend could pick up and fire with little to no effort at all.

But both are "unsecured loaded firearms", but I think you can see how it isn't the same situation. Therefore, the rules I have for each are different. And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages.

Anyways, because I find the issue of storage of firearms so situation-specific, I think the idea of mandating a solution is silly and simplistic. I have zero problem with throwing the book at people when a problem happens, but I believe you simply can't legislate a solution that isn't needlessly burdensome. You guys seem very hung up on creating a law that removes any possible way for a bad thing to happen, but that's not how a free society works. We don't require that no one is able to have more than 2 drinks of alcohol ever so that no one gets in a DUI accident, we simply make the punishment for DUI so burdensome, and the alternatives so attractive (cabs, ridesharing, free overnight parking, etc) that we lessen the problem without creating ridiculous pre-emptive solutions.

Soooo gun owners shouldn't be expected to be responsible, is what you are saying. Your DUI example is actually perfect. It used to not be a crime to drink and drive (and even if it was, it was rarely ever enforced). Then we decided as a society that we weren't going to just accept deaths from the irresponsible behavior of a dangerous substance (alcohol) in a dangerous situation (driving a vehicle). So we made it against the law to drink and drive. That is, in fact, legislating a solution to the problem. Its the very DEFINITION of legislating a solution to the problem.

So lets do the same with gun ownership. You leave your guns laying around (or even "hidden") and not locked up, you're culpable for any harm that weapon causes. And it's fair because the same rules apply to everyone. No special exceptions of "but I teach my kid to be responsible!" bullshit. You own a gun, you lock it up. Period.

But again, with DUI, we legislated consequences for if you break the law. We donít legislate you canít have any drinks in case you might break the law. Same with ďfire in a crowded theaterĒ, if you yell it and cause a panic, you are held responsible; you donít have to wear a ball gag so you canít break the law.

And same here. If thereís an accident, Iím comfortable taking responsibility for my guns. I am not agreeing to your trying to legislate away any possibility of an accident because thatís not how rights work.

I don't blame gun owners for this type of thing. Yes, it's their negligence that has directly caused the death . . . but if there's no law that says you have store a gun safely we know that people won't do it. Look at the statistics. This is a problem squarely at the feet of a government that has allowed lax gun storage laws to go on for too long. Stiff penalties for irresponsible gun ownership need to be enacted, as do safe storage requirements.

"I don't blame gun owners for this type of thing." I do.

But it makes sense in your worldview of blaming an inanimate object instead of a person for committing a wrong....

I didn't blame an inanimate object. Gun owners tend to be law abiding, just like the majority of us. They do the legal minimum necessary. If the legal penalty is not significant enough, or the correct safeguards are not legislated then these accidents will continue to happen.

But again, with DUI, we legislated consequences for if you break the law. We donít legislate you canít have any drinks in case you might break the law.

Correct. It's not illegal to drink. It's illegal to drink and drive (ie, drinking and driving is irresponsible behavior that puts other people at risk and can result in injury/death).

Same logic for gun ownership. It's not illegal to own a gun. It'd be illegal to own a gun and not lock it up (ie, owning an unsecured firearm is irresponsible behavior that puts other people at risk and can result in injury/death).

I don't blame gun owners for this type of thing. Yes, it's their negligence that has directly caused the death . . . but if there's no law that says you have store a gun safely we know that people won't do it. Look at the statistics. This is a problem squarely at the feet of a government that has allowed lax gun storage laws to go on for too long. Stiff penalties for irresponsible gun ownership need to be enacted, as do safe storage requirements.

"I don't blame gun owners for this type of thing." I do.

But it makes sense in your worldview of blaming an inanimate object instead of a person for committing a wrong....

I didn't blame an inanimate object. Gun owners tend to be law abiding, just like the majority of us. They do the legal minimum necessary. If the legal penalty is not significant enough, or the correct safeguards are not legislated then these accidents will continue to happen.

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time. It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber. It's somewhere in my bedroom. Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it. She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

That's a very different scenario than if I had a Glock handgun (no active safety) that I left loaded with one in the chamber in my nightstand and my kid or her friend could pick up and fire with little to no effort at all.

But both are "unsecured loaded firearms", but I think you can see how it isn't the same situation. Therefore, the rules I have for each are different. And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages.

Holy shit. This keeps me up at night. I assume that, if I were to meet your family IRL, I would have no way of knowing that you were the kind of person who kept a loaded weapon accessible to children. What happens during a playdate if an older sibling tags along who can lift that loaded shotgun? When people ask you about gun storage before they let their kids come over, what do you say, or is that not a thing where you live? Do you put the gun up when you have guests?

Why is any kid in my master bedroom? The way my house is set up, you canít accidetnally be in there and accidentally stumble upon the gun.

No one has ever asked me about guns in my home.

Have you ever met any children? They do stuff they aren't supposed to do. All of them-even yours. Your kids knows there is a gun in your bedroom. All it takes is a little bragging (kids are known to do this, too), interest raised, and off they go. It wouldn't be an accident-it would be intentional. They would be in there intentionally looking for the gun. Because children are idiots, and they rely on us not to be idiots and leave a loaded gun for them to find. Don't take my word for it, just look at some of these cases:http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/child-injured-killed

"but my kid will always listen" is not a gun storage plan. Please do not be one of the 20-50% of gun owners who leave unsecured and loaded weapons for kids to find. It just takes one anomalous situation to lead to tragedy. Please be the responsible gun owner you claim to be.

Also, if you are reading this and you have children, always ask about gun storage. And, if you own guns, please give an accurate and complete answer to how you store them. Like "well, it's loaded and just kind of in my unlocked bedroom that is, you know, down the hall and no one should be in there, so I'm pretty sure that's the same as in a gun safe."

Maybe a $1500+ dollar gun safe bolted to the house ought to be a requirement of owning guns then.

Many of us are in states where we are required insure our cars before we can drive them on public streets...

Just a cost of doing business.

I hope the courts throw the book at the father. The kid was definitely off his rocker with beliefs that Taylor Swift was stalking HIM and hacking his phone. Father gives guns to a guy like this???

If you think a $1500 safe is reasonable I look forward to you support of a $10 ID required for voting. You know, since we can charge for exercising rights now.

As said, we pay thousands of dollars a year for the right to drive a car. Maybe $1,500 is too much, but once again, your response is full of all the reasons it would be too hard for you without any attempt at taking responsibility and saying how you do solve the problem without the pointless platitude of "enforce the laws we have". That would be fine. Work up a plan on how to do that since what we do now does not work. Is your answer that everyone in those jobs a just lazy bums and they get attracted to those jobs, or can you admit that all the grumbling of the gun lobby makes it too difficult to enforce the laws and we should look at a different solution?

As I've said before, storage of firearms is highly personal and dependent on tons of factors such as type of firearm, typical inhabitants of the home, type of home, etc etc etc.

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time. It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber. It's somewhere in my bedroom. Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it. She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

That's a very different scenario than if I had a Glock handgun (no active safety) that I left loaded with one in the chamber in my nightstand and my kid or her friend could pick up and fire with little to no effort at all.

But both are "unsecured loaded firearms", but I think you can see how it isn't the same situation. Therefore, the rules I have for each are different. And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages.

Anyways, because I find the issue of storage of firearms so situation-specific, I think the idea of mandating a solution is silly and simplistic. I have zero problem with throwing the book at people when a problem happens, but I believe you simply can't legislate a solution that isn't needlessly burdensome. You guys seem very hung up on creating a law that removes any possible way for a bad thing to happen, but that's not how a free society works. We don't require that no one is able to have more than 2 drinks of alcohol ever so that no one gets in a DUI accident, we simply make the punishment for DUI so burdensome, and the alternatives so attractive (cabs, ridesharing, free overnight parking, etc) that we lessen the problem without creating ridiculous pre-emptive solutions.

Soooo gun owners shouldn't be expected to be responsible, is what you are saying. Your DUI example is actually perfect. It used to not be a crime to drink and drive (and even if it was, it was rarely ever enforced). Then we decided as a society that we weren't going to just accept deaths from the irresponsible behavior of a dangerous substance (alcohol) in a dangerous situation (driving a vehicle). So we made it against the law to drink and drive. That is, in fact, legislating a solution to the problem. Its the very DEFINITION of legislating a solution to the problem.

So lets do the same with gun ownership. You leave your guns laying around (or even "hidden") and not locked up, you're culpable for any harm that weapon causes. And it's fair because the same rules apply to everyone. No special exceptions of "but I teach my kid to be responsible!" bullshit. You own a gun, you lock it up. Period.

But again, with DUI, we legislated consequences for if you break the law. We donít legislate you canít have any drinks in case you might break the law. Same with ďfire in a crowded theaterĒ, if you yell it and cause a panic, you are held responsible; you donít have to wear a ball gag so you canít break the law.

And same here. If thereís an accident, Iím comfortable taking responsibility for my guns. I am not agreeing to your trying to legislate away any possibility of an accident because thatís not how rights work.

I'm in agreement with your idea that circumstances vary significantly and writing the rules as to how to responsibly secure a gun would be difficult.

I'm not in agreement with this analogy. A better analogy would be that you don't face consequences until your actions hurt someone. Which would suggest that you think driving drunk is fine, as long as you don't destroy property or kill anyone. This is actually a really good example of legislating irresponsible actions rather than legislating consequences.

Maybe a $1500+ dollar gun safe bolted to the house ought to be a requirement of owning guns then.

Many of us are in states where we are required insure our cars before we can drive them on public streets...

Just a cost of doing business.

I hope the courts throw the book at the father. The kid was definitely off his rocker with beliefs that Taylor Swift was stalking HIM and hacking his phone. Father gives guns to a guy like this???

If you think a $1500 safe is reasonable I look forward to you support of a $10 ID required for voting. You know, since we can charge for exercising rights now.

As said, we pay thousands of dollars a year for the right to drive a car. Maybe $1,500 is too much, but once again, your response is full of all the reasons it would be too hard for you without any attempt at taking responsibility and saying how you do solve the problem without the pointless platitude of "enforce the laws we have". That would be fine. Work up a plan on how to do that since what we do now does not work. Is your answer that everyone in those jobs a just lazy bums and they get attracted to those jobs, or can you admit that all the grumbling of the gun lobby makes it too difficult to enforce the laws and we should look at a different solution?

As I've said before, storage of firearms is highly personal and dependent on tons of factors such as type of firearm, typical inhabitants of the home, type of home, etc etc etc.

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time. It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber. It's somewhere in my bedroom. Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it. She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

That's a very different scenario than if I had a Glock handgun (no active safety) that I left loaded with one in the chamber in my nightstand and my kid or her friend could pick up and fire with little to no effort at all.

But both are "unsecured loaded firearms", but I think you can see how it isn't the same situation. Therefore, the rules I have for each are different. And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages.

Anyways, because I find the issue of storage of firearms so situation-specific, I think the idea of mandating a solution is silly and simplistic. I have zero problem with throwing the book at people when a problem happens, but I believe you simply can't legislate a solution that isn't needlessly burdensome. You guys seem very hung up on creating a law that removes any possible way for a bad thing to happen, but that's not how a free society works. We don't require that no one is able to have more than 2 drinks of alcohol ever so that no one gets in a DUI accident, we simply make the punishment for DUI so burdensome, and the alternatives so attractive (cabs, ridesharing, free overnight parking, etc) that we lessen the problem without creating ridiculous pre-emptive solutions.

Soooo gun owners shouldn't be expected to be responsible, is what you are saying. Your DUI example is actually perfect. It used to not be a crime to drink and drive (and even if it was, it was rarely ever enforced). Then we decided as a society that we weren't going to just accept deaths from the irresponsible behavior of a dangerous substance (alcohol) in a dangerous situation (driving a vehicle). So we made it against the law to drink and drive. That is, in fact, legislating a solution to the problem. Its the very DEFINITION of legislating a solution to the problem.

So lets do the same with gun ownership. You leave your guns laying around (or even "hidden") and not locked up, you're culpable for any harm that weapon causes. And it's fair because the same rules apply to everyone. No special exceptions of "but I teach my kid to be responsible!" bullshit. You own a gun, you lock it up. Period.

But again, with DUI, we legislated consequences for if you break the law. We donít legislate you canít have any drinks in case you might break the law. Same with ďfire in a crowded theaterĒ, if you yell it and cause a panic, you are held responsible; you donít have to wear a ball gag so you canít break the law.

And same here. If thereís an accident, Iím comfortable taking responsibility for my guns. I am not agreeing to your trying to legislate away any possibility of an accident because thatís not how rights work.

I'm in agreement with your idea that circumstances vary significantly and writing the rules as to how to responsibly secure a gun would be difficult.

I'm not in agreement with this analogy. A better analogy would be that you don't face consequences until your actions hurt someone. Which would suggest that you think driving drunk is fine, as long as you don't destroy property or kill anyone. This is actually a really good example of legislating irresponsible actions rather than legislating consequences.

Great. So do what Texas did and don't over define it. Don't write nanny-state laws.

The problem is when you try to legislate solutions that may or may not work for everybody. Trying to say "such and such safe" or "ammo in different spot" (Still waiting for the logic on that one) instead of just "don't let a child access your guns" is the problem. Nanny state, wherein our capitalist minded friends will find work around and methods of fulfilling the law without actually breaking it (See Featureless Rifles for an example of stupid laws leading to stupid work arounds) but fully breaking the "spirit" of the law.

I don't blame gun owners for this type of thing. Yes, it's their negligence that has directly caused the death . . . but if there's no law that says you have store a gun safely we know that people won't do it. Look at the statistics. This is a problem squarely at the feet of a government that has allowed lax gun storage laws to go on for too long. Stiff penalties for irresponsible gun ownership need to be enacted, as do safe storage requirements.

"I don't blame gun owners for this type of thing." I do.

But it makes sense in your worldview of blaming an inanimate object instead of a person for committing a wrong....

I didn't blame an inanimate object. Gun owners tend to be law abiding, just like the majority of us. They do the legal minimum necessary. If the legal penalty is not significant enough, or the correct safeguards are not legislated then these accidents will continue to happen.

I don't blame gun owners for this type of thing. Yes, it's their negligence that has directly caused the death . . . but if there's no law that says you have store a gun safely we know that people won't do it. Look at the statistics. This is a problem squarely at the feet of a government that has allowed lax gun storage laws to go on for too long. Stiff penalties for irresponsible gun ownership need to be enacted, as do safe storage requirements.

"I don't blame gun owners for this type of thing." I do.

But it makes sense in your worldview of blaming an inanimate object instead of a person for committing a wrong....

I didn't blame an inanimate object. Gun owners tend to be law abiding, just like the majority of us. They do the legal minimum necessary. If the legal penalty is not significant enough, or the correct safeguards are not legislated then these accidents will continue to happen.

Iím a fully grown man and it would be physically impossible for me to shoot myself in the head with my shotgun barring some method of remotely pulling the trigger.

If only Kurt Cobain had this same level of naivete' we'd have a lot better music right now.

I personally would be interested to see how many people in Texas have been prosecuted and gone to jail for those deaths--or for any others where guns were left out for children to find. I'd be willing to bet good money that the answer is 'almost none'. Laws on the books don't mean jack if a DA won't prosecute because 'the family has suffered enough'. (Which is utter BS, in my not so humble opinion.)

And yes, I do believe that mandating you have to store your firearm in a sturdy, lockable steel safe that is either over a certain amount of weight (thereby making it hard to remove) or a lighter-weight safe secured via approved methods (bolting it to the floor or to a wall stud, chained down with chains/locks of a certain gauge, etc) is not as impossible as some gun owners seem to think. Hell, we do it with water heaters. We can't do it with gun safes?

The fact that certain gun owners not only don't embrace this idea, but are coming up with ridiculous excuses about how it's inconvenient/impossible/too expensive/just not PRACTICAL, don't you understand? just makes it 100% clear to me what side of this debate they're on. They don't care how many people die. And sorry--if you have a LOADED shotgun in an open room that children can access, you're not a responsible gun owner. How many other gun owners thought their kid 'couldn't possibly pull the trigger on XYZ gun', only to be proven wrong in the most horrible way possible? You're playing russian roulette with your kid's life and the life of any other child that enters your home.

You do have a constitutional right to purchase a firearm for self protection. Without significant, government ordained barriers to entry. (Which is also why the various gun-tax laws on ammo and firearms being floated around would not be found constitutional, IMO).

That's not true at all. Taxation is not the same as regulation. Of course DC vs Heller concluded that regulation of firearms would continue. But, a tax is not a form of regulation. Seattle instituted a gun tax in 2015 and it was overwhelmingly upheld by the Washington Supreme Court. The folks challenging it didn't even invoke "unconstitutionality" as a means of attempting to repeal but rather claimed that it violated a specific state law that bans cities form regulating firearms.

So poll taxes are legal, in your opinion?

No they are unconstitutional per the 24th amendment since the original implementation violates the 15th amendment. You should get to know the Constitution.

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time. It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber. It's somewhere in my bedroom. Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it. She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

My experience with young kids would indicate that your confidence that your kid will never disobey you is likely unfounded.

And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages.

You've previously argued that a 5 year old girl isn't strong enough to shoot your shotgun, so it's not a problem . . . but a 12 year old child who would certainly have the strength necessary only warrants a 'maybe' in changing the way you're leaving the gun lying around. So, at this point you're 100% relying on the child to just do what you've said.

Iím a fully grown man and it would be physically impossible for me to shoot myself in the head with my shotgun barring some method of remotely pulling the trigger.

You've been provided with an actual example of a three year old who killed himself with a shotgun left lying around the home. I'm not sure what you're arguing here . . . that it didn't happen? That it could never happen to you because . . . ?

The same way that laws regarding seat-belts/child seats prevent folks from accidentally killing their kids through negligence, hopefully some safe gun storage laws will be implemented to prevent the same. As you've amply demonstrated, gun owners don't see their negligent behavior putting others at risk as a problem . . . so they can't be trusted to do the right thing.

I have to admit that my mind is kind of blown (no pun intended) by the idea that someone can have an unsecured loaded weapon in a house with young children and think they are a responsible gun owner. I am going to be a lot more skeptical of anyone claiming to be a responsible gun owner in the future. This has been a good lesson for me. People self-reporting how responsible they are with guns is like people saying they are good drivers: lots of them are wrong.

I have to admit that my mind is kind of blown (no pun intended) by the idea that someone can have an unsecured loaded weapon in a house with young children and think they are a responsible gun owner. I am going to be a lot more skeptical of anyone claiming to be a responsible gun owner in the future. This has been a good lesson for me. People self-reporting how responsible they are with guns is like people saying they are good drivers: lots of them are wrong.

Agreed. Not only are people like this engaging in irresponsible behavior, but they can't see how irresponsible it is, not even when it's directly pointed out to them.

Which is why we need a law - guns get locked up. Period. And the law needs to be vigorously enforced.

I have to admit that my mind is kind of blown (no pun intended) by the idea that someone can have an unsecured loaded weapon in a house with young children and think they are a responsible gun owner. I am going to be a lot more skeptical of anyone claiming to be a responsible gun owner in the future. This has been a good lesson for me. People self-reporting how responsible they are with guns is like people saying they are good drivers: lots of them are wrong.

Agreed. Not only are people like this engaging in irresponsible behavior, but they can't see how irresponsible it is, not even when it's directly pointed out to them.

Which is why we need a law - guns get locked up. Period. And the law needs to be vigorously enforced.

I had a gun rack hanging in my bedroom growing up (probably starting around 12-13). Most friends did too. We would routinely grab our guns for snake protection and walk dry creek beds or go hunting at night for raccoons or shoot skeet on our own. Some of my fondest memories. This was in a rural community that rarely saw any gun violence and if it did, it was just a by-product of other criminal activity. That community operates exactly the same now as it did then.

Just thought I'd add my anecdote for some additional flavor in this conversation.

For reference, this is how guns must be stored in Canada:http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/storage-entreposage-eng.htmIt seems like those guidelines would prevent most if not all accidental shootings by children who find guns, and many thefts of guns, without significant expense or hassle. Since you still have to purchase guns (even though it is a "right", it's not like they are handed out for free), the requirement to purchase safe storage for the guns is not ridiculous. Any issues with a policy like that?

I have to admit that my mind is kind of blown (no pun intended) by the idea that someone can have an unsecured loaded weapon in a house with young children and think they are a responsible gun owner. I am going to be a lot more skeptical of anyone claiming to be a responsible gun owner in the future. This has been a good lesson for me. People self-reporting how responsible they are with guns is like people saying they are good drivers: lots of them are wrong.

Agreed. Not only are people like this engaging in irresponsible behavior, but they can't see how irresponsible it is, not even when it's directly pointed out to them.

Which is why we need a law - guns get locked up. Period. And the law needs to be vigorously enforced.

I had a gun racklocker hanging in my bedroom growing up (probably starting around 12-13). Most friends did too. We would routinely unlock and grab our guns for snake protection and walk dry creek beds or go hunting at night for raccoons or shoot skeet on our own. Some of my fondest memories. This was in a rural community that rarely saw any gun violence and if it did, it was just a by-product of other criminal activity. That community operates exactly the same now as it did then.

Just thought I'd add my anecdote for some additional flavor in this conversation.

I fixed that for you, so you can see how DRASTICALLY different having a "lock up your gun" law would have affected your life (hint, almost zero impact).

After reading through the last page or so of replies, plus this article today: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-dcfs-daycare-gun-ban-20180418-story.html. , I feel so justified in my distrust of gun owners with my kids. Definitely going to have to reinforce to my kids they are not allowed in ANYONEíS house where I know a weapon is there. Whether I trust them or not (I donít because they are KIDS), I equally do not trust any other children present or the ďresponsibleĒ gun owner who might be lying to me.

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time. It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber. It's somewhere in my bedroom. Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it. She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

That's a very different scenario than if I had a Glock handgun (no active safety) that I left loaded with one in the chamber in my nightstand and my kid or her friend could pick up and fire with little to no effort at all.

But both are "unsecured loaded firearms", but I think you can see how it isn't the same situation. Therefore, the rules I have for each are different. And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages.

Holy shit. This keeps me up at night. I assume that, if I were to meet your family IRL, I would have no way of knowing that you were the kind of person who kept a loaded weapon accessible to children. What happens during a playdate if an older sibling tags along who can lift that loaded shotgun? When people ask you about gun storage before they let their kids come over, what do you say, or is that not a thing where you live? Do you put the gun up when you have guests?

Why is any kid in my master bedroom? The way my house is set up, you canít accidetnally be in there and accidentally stumble upon the gun.

No one has ever asked me about guns in my home.

Is that going to be your defense when a kid finds the gun and shoots someone? "Your honor, no one has ever asked me about guns in my home." This whole description would be funny if the topic was not so serious. So you think the kids that find firearms only do so because the layout of the house allowed it but somehow no kid can get through the labyrinth of mayhem that it takes to get to your room? Or are you saying their is a guard or surveillance camera or trip wire setup so that you know someone is on the way and can intercept them?

Except, ya know, firearms accidents are a tiny TINY slice of deaths. "Fixing the death rate" is a left dog-whistle for ignoring real statistics. Firearms accidents (and adolescent murders outside of gang-related warfare) are basically non-existent in our 320 million population.

In actual numbers, its 82 kids lost per year to firearm accidental fatalities. 82 out of 320 million. 82 out of 100 million gun owners. That is 0.082 per 100,000 gun owners. Or 1 death per 1,218,000 gun owners. Why do you want to restrict the rights of 1,217,999 gun owners because of One idiot, when there are already laws on the books to punish that idiot?

I'm not sure how you felt all my ire was based only on firearms accidents. When I refer the the death rate I mean anyone who is killed by a gun for any reason. That number should be as close to zero as possible. I don't honestly care about statistics because there is not an acceptable rate of death for something I do not consider a necessity to exist in the world. Therefore my assessment is based on treating a gun as a luxury, and lining up what might be OK for injuries caused by that luxury. For example, I understand people drown in swimming pools, but I also feel that the frequency of that would not warrant further involvement of laws. Responsible pool owners usually fence their pool, put a lock on the gate or do other things to minimize accidental drowning from a toddler falling in. If death did occur as a result my pool, I'd certainly be able to be punished for that. Yet somehow you feel a gun, which has much less of a joyful purpose to exist, as a pool does should be treated differently? I'll answer for you. Your answer is yes because it is a constitutional right, and there we circle back to my rationale for why this protection is not warranted for something not needed for a good and happy life. Free speech is important for that. Having a gun, not so much.

The fear mongering of we should all shiver in fear when we talk casually about taking away constitutional rights carries little weight. The Second Amendment is so unique that it is not hard for most people to understand. It is only in trying to keep it protected are the arguments used to try to create the false equivalency. The only thing the Second Amendment really has in common with the others with respect to protecting a good and happy life is that is an amendment and that it is in the Constitution.